THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMPONENTS OF MINDFULNESS WITH COGNITIVE EMOTION REGULATION STRATEGIES: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ALEXITHYMIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the causal relationship of mindfulness and cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mediating role of alexithymia in this relationship. Method: In this descriptive-correlational study, 355 students (192 femalesand 163 males) were recruited from ShahidBahonar university of Kerman through randomclustered sampling method. Five- facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ), Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS) and cognitive emotion regulation strategies questionnaire (CERQ) were used as instruments. Data were analyzed through SPSS22 and Mplus5 software packages and using path analysis and mediation analysis. Results: There was significant relationship between facets of mindfulness, alexithymia and cognitive emotion regulation strategies. In addition, facet of difficulty in identifying feelings had partial mediating role in relationship between facets of mindfulness and positive emotion regulation strategies. Conclusion: Results indicated that mindfulness has a significant role in prediction of different aspects of alexithymia and cognitive emotion regulation and it can be useful for improvement of emotional problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".